So many of the problems lately seem so much like rookie mistakes. They aren't really in the code; they are more in forgetting to set things up or only doing some of the setup or not following procedures that haven't been updated in a while, etc. These are the type things which occur when you hire new people, but don't train them, or when people are overworked or had new tasks added to their plate that they haven't done before (and no training). It seems like the staff is back in a learning curve without a net.
Inno laid off almost a fifth of their staff the middle of April because "we need to transform the company to make it more efficient and agile". Maybe in the future they will become more efficient and agile, but it's not a great way to keep things running smoothly-ish in the short run for their current user base. ...and that's just sad. I hope I'm wrong and we get wine and roses next week.
What you say makes complete sense to me, Dave. I was not aware of the layoffs, but it was easy to find in Google. It appears that they are taking some care to look after the "surplus" employees.
Having been through "down-sizing" several times in my career, it is a painful and very disruptive process, no matter how well you look after the "dear departed". I would hope there are specific and innovative plans to be more "efficient and agile". These sort of words are very typical codes for saying that we are less profitable and we need to reduce costs.
Unless your organization was very inefficient to begin with (highly unlikely in the case of Inno, judging by the quality of their products to this point), organizational adjustments are likely not going to increase productivity significantly. And the cost of implementing the adjustments often outweighs the eventual returns.
In the organization I was in, they went from saying they would do "more with less" to admitting that would have to do "less with less". That actually improved survivor morale substantially.
Technological improvements such as a more efficient authoring environment are seldom worth the cost of retrofitting to an old product - but they may make more sense for incorporation into brand new products.
Realistically, they could reduce scope (perhaps drop less profitable games or put them in maintenance mode), slow down product development, simplify products by eliminating less popular features, increase profitability by making the games more expensive (this may have the opposite effect through reduced player participation) and/or - dare I say - accept lower quality standards.